I never stated my opinion on MGM in my comment, simply stated that FGM is worse and that's why it is banned. Nothing more, nothing less.

Is it worse Highongoofballs? It affects a minority of women and its illegal. Male circumcision affects most men and is legal. One act is discouraged by society the other encouraged by society. One act affects the majority of men the other a non-existent minority of women....I mean circumcision is a lot more than just the process itself.

by the way recently the BBC published an article stating that the majority of female circumcsion cases here in the UK were based on false claims (as is the case with everything that is feminism). Feminism, relies in everything that it does on fabrications, exaggerations and distortions of reality. This in an effort to portray a privileged class, namely women, as an underprivileged class. The only way you can do that is through deceit.

(Original post by sciencegirl1499)
I agree.
I don't think religious practises which have been done for so many years without issues or concerns should be made illegal.
parents have their Childs best interest at heart. we can't take over how parents raise their children

(Original post by Dheorl)
Surely if these "scientific" benefits were even remotely accurate or worth the trade-off though, any rational adult would see the week or two of discomfort as worth it? No? Funny that really isn't it.

What's inaccurate about the recorded and proven benefits? Look it up if you don't believe this. This is the same as saying that a parent cannot allow their child to have an injection, yet the vast majority have injections when they're 5. Both occur at a young age, and have health benefits outweighing the costs, majority of which include the risk of it being performed incorrectly (So can an operation) and the pain (Again, an operation can include this as well as an injection).

Absolutely. It is genital mutilation no questions asked. Any 'medical benefits' are proposed by dubious studies-low sample size, questionable methodology etc-and how it has remained legal for so long is beyond me and inexcusable.

(Original post by jsk800)
What's inaccurate about the recorded and proven benefits? Look it up if you don't believe this. This is the same as saying that a parent cannot allow their child to have an injection, yet the vast majority have injections when they're 5. Both occur at a young age, and have health benefits outweighing the costs, majority of which include the risk of it being performed incorrectly (So can an operation) and the pain (Again, an operation can include this as well as an injection).

I've yet to see any studies I find believable beyond reasonable doubt, especially regarding benefits relevant to the western world. Injections have much greater, proven benefits, and AFAIK lower risk. Not to mention the long term effects of reduced sensitivity etc.

(Original post by Dheorl)
I've yet to see any studies I find believable beyond reasonable doubt, especially regarding benefits relevant to the western world. Injections have much greater, proven benefits, and AFAIK lower risk. Not to mention the long term effects of reduced sensitivity etc.

A belief is a value based judgement, so whatever you think can or cannot be backed up with facts. That's your opinion, therefore I'm not going to debate against something that is specific to you.

(Original post by jsk800)
A belief is a value based judgement, so whatever you think can or cannot be backed up with facts. That's your opinion, therefore I'm not going to debate against something that is specific to you.

Lol, such a cop-out. Ok, I've yet to see any studies that prove beyond reasonable doubt. Better?

It's not an opinion, it's a complete lack of decent scientific method leading people to carry out a procedure with no credible benefits and plenty of downsides, ironically enough mainly based on belief.

(Original post by Dheorl)
Lol, such a cop-out. Ok, I've yet to see any studies that prove beyond reasonable doubt. Better?

It's not an opinion, it's a complete lack of decent scientific method leading people to carry out a procedure with no credible benefits and plenty of downsides, ironically enough mainly based on belief.

That isn't a fact though. This whole debate is based completely upon an opinion. I am arguing with scientific fact, those of which you choose not to believe.

(Original post by QE2)
No it isn't. There are no medical benefits to non-clinical male circumcision (if you are already practicing safe sex), and there are disadvantages. This is why the NHS refuses to do it.

A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sexpartners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).
Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.

(Original post by Dheorl)
What exactly isn't a fact? And care to provide some of these scientific facts you're apparently arguing with?

(Original post by jsk800)
A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sexpartners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).
Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.

Now do you have any scientific evidence to back that up? You still haven't stated what I've said that isn't a fact...

Irrelevant as they should be wearing condoms anyway.
In fact, this is a negative because some men will forego condoms because they believe that it protects them, thus increasing the spread of STIs.

Protection against penile cancer

Correlates with a history of phimosis. Circumcision post childhood actually increases the risk.

and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sexpartners.

Studies show that sexualy behaviour and safe sex practices are the important factors.

Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).

Again, simple good hygiene avoids this.

Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).

Medically necessary circumcision is not an issue.

Your argument seems to be based on carrying out a surgical procedure because it may provide a slight redusction in the risk of contracting certain conditions.Appendectomy 100% reduces the risk of appendicitis. Do you support this procedure being carried out on all children.

Double mastectomy eliminates the risk of breast cancer. Presumably you think that all women should have both breasts remove once they have finished puberty.

Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.

So you support mutilating the genitals of infants because it makes washing a bit easier!

(Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
Female genital mutilation is literally cutting off the clit. It bars the individual from having an enjoyable sexual experience ever again. It's a permanent change to the body with no benefits and many negative effects. There's no double standard because they aren't the same thing.

That is not the case with circumcision as it has no permanent negative effects.

As with the consent argument, check my earlier comment.

There is also the point that male circumcision reduces the sensitivity of the penis and lowers male enjoyment as a side affect.

I'm sure if you did a study of all the women with Female circumcisions you could find some obscure medical benefit.

At the end of the day, the vast majority of people outside of the USA have circumcisions for religious or serious medical reasons. The USA by comparison built a whole business around male circumcisions in the 1950's and 1960's which quite literally was based around the belief that men having foreskin was a bad thing. It became a million dollar industry that survives in the US to this day.

You should only Circumcise children for medical reasons, cleaning under the foreskin is not hard at all, the vast majority of men do it everyday! Imagine the outrage if religious groups were allowed to tattoo newborns? It's the same thing!